10Likes
August 9th, 2012, 11:22 AM
Is it a religion?
Is it a way or thinking? a world view?
How does it work?
What ideas does it promote?
If you know anything about Scientology... please share.
I put this thread in psychology and behaviour becuase it seems to me that this is the only thing scientology aims to effect or change.
Is it that mysterious? I would of thought at least somebody on a science forum might be able to shed some light on scientology... dont be shy folks
Scientology is a scam. It is a pretend religion.
It was started by science fiction writer L.Ron Hubbard, who called it dianetics. Originally it was a swindle related to getting money out of people in return for spurious personality and IQ development courses, which did nothing. He even used mock meters that measured skin electrical resistance, but were claimed to measure that development. When Hubbard died, some of his disciples took over and continued to make oodles of money from gullible people.
They realised a while back, that they could make even more money if they were classified as a church, since churches do not pay tax. So they did this, and then invented a series of "religious teachings" related to aliens from outer space. They have a weird system of 'revealing religious truths' to people as they supposedly make progress on their path to enlightenment. However, even though the church does not reveal all the teachings (which are like a science fiction story), it is all available on the internet, if you care to look for it.
Scientology beliefs and practices - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A number of senior scientology people have left the whole swindling mess over the years, and revealed exactly what is going on.
I spent about an hour reading some of their material (my mother also had a copy of Dianetics in the living room) and I can't figure out how it became anything significant. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who has generally no understanding regarding the appeal of religion in the first place.Originally Posted by question for you
Scientology is a test of intelligence made by Aliens.
Aslong as a single human is stupid enough to believe in it, they will not share technology with us due to not being ready for it.
That's funny!
How about if scientology (as the crazy concept that's presented) is just paving the way for science (as the cold calculated study of things) to dictate our beleifs and beleif systems in the future? maybe the next 'movement' will be scientism... which will be much more acceptable as a belief system, thanks to the ridiculousness of scientology, because it's based on true science... it's just a thought.
Scientology is not based on science at all. The only thing it has in common with science is the word "science" in its name.That's funny!
How about if scientology (as the crazy concept that's presented) is just paving the way for science (as the cold calculated study of things) to dictate our beleifs and beleif systems in the future? maybe the next 'movement' will be scientism... which will be much more acceptable as a belief system, thanks to the ridiculousness of scientology, because it's based on true science... it's just a thought.
Understood, thank you.Scientology is not based on science at all. The only thing it has in common with science is the word "science" in its name.That's funny!
How about if scientology (as the crazy concept that's presented) is just paving the way for science (as the cold calculated study of things) to dictate our beleifs and beleif systems in the future? maybe the next 'movement' will be scientism... which will be much more acceptable as a belief system, thanks to the ridiculousness of scientology, because it's based on true science... it's just a thought.
My point was that the mere use of science in the name, might create a mental association between science and faith/beleif systems... pathing the way somehow, for a rational science based belief sytem in the near future? watch this space.
There is no science based belief system, nor any possibility for a science based belief system in the near or far future.
Well I suppose it would be a contradiction...There is no science based belief system, nor any possibility for a science based belief system in the near or far future.
How about an ethics system based on scientific knowledge? or a world view based on science?
I am skeptical that such a thing could exist. What features do you think an ethics system based on science knowledge would have?
Lets forget ethics for now and focus on world view... (which encompasses ethics)
A scientific world veiw would be one that conforms with the latest scientific knowledge or theories. therefor a feature of it would be to do away with any concepts that cannot be proven by science. I imagine a feature of a scientific world view agenda would be the eradication of anything considered myth or superstition, to be replaced with purely rational conclusions about the meaning of life and our purpose in life.
So instead of 'you must be good so you get to heaven' it could be 'you must be good becuase it will make life more enjoyable for all and cause less suffering for yourself and others'.
Maybe science isn't advanced enough yet to be able to use it to form a world view. yet it seems that already many people have a world view which is based on the scientific realities they are aware of.
Why does it have to be a belief system? Why can't it simply be science and reality? Why taint science with belief? Religion often spoils anything it touches.
That's why harold said science wont be used to make a beleif system... and i agreed that using science to create belief is a contradiction.
so we changed it to world veiw instead of belief system... a subtlle difference.
Well, since science is basically reality, it is also a "world view". So with that I can agree. It's just that reality doesn't need another label. It's superfluous.That's why harold said science wont be used to make a beleif system... and i agreed that using science to create belief is a contradiction.
so we changed it to world veiw instead of belief system... a subtlle difference.
Science is not reality... it's more man's current knowledge of reality, which is at present far from 'all encompasing' knowledge of reality.Well, since science is basically reality, it is also a "world view". So with that I can agree. It's just that reality doesn't need another label. It's superfluous.That's why harold said science wont be used to make a beleif system... and i agreed that using science to create belief is a contradiction.
so we changed it to world veiw instead of belief system... a subtlle difference.
Therefor do you agree science is not yet developed enough to form a realistic and all seeing world view? or maybe 'universal view' or 'life view'
Of course our knowledge of science is extremely incomplete. That does not mean that science is not reality - it is. We just don't know all of it.
Of course I agree that we have not developed a full understanding of science. I am not even sure if that's possible. But we can keep moving forwards. Remember that if humanity dies out tomorrow, given time, other life forms will find the exact same science. This is because reality doesn't change just because we aren't the ones studying it.
scientology at southern illinois university(siu) circa 1971 was very much bio feedback, using anything that came to hand, (tin cans and an ohm meter, microphones, poly graphs, etc)
in a few weeks of using the techniques, one could slow down or speed up the heart rate, and control the stress as shown by the ohm meter, etc
but that was then
what it is now
is beyond my ken
I'm going to be pedantic and insist 'science is not reality'. Science deals with reality, science seeks reality, science IS 'man's knowledge of the truth of reality'. But that doesn't make it reality itself... it's more the study/knowledge of reality rather than the thing itself. Anyway, I think we both agree really. I think you know what I mean and I know what you mean. It's only a very subtle difference in interpretation.
I'm glad we agree that science in at it's current stage (as far as we know) isn't well developed enough to be able to form and dictate universal view of life that everybody is expected to accept.
I hope it is possible that oneday we can work out everything... but at the minute science or mans knowledge of the truth is still in it's infancy one would think.
The ancients knew how to slow down heart rates by chanting ohm. it took the scientologists a few whole weeks to work that out?
What if "religion of science" has a revision number and the follower need to update to the latest version of world-view as soon as it is made available by a committee?
Because knowledge is too big for one person, so it need a committee to control what information is made relevant to the latest version of world-view.
So, with a committee: a person who subscribed to "religion of science" are fashioned by the committee's subjective judgement. ()
Yeah, that was exactly the type of thing i was worried about! Even with a commity (scientific comunity?) organising the religion of science it's still nowhere near knowledgable enough to explain reality. Which is why you would need the followers to regularly 'update' there veiws as new discoveries are accepted and shared by the commity.What if "religion of science" has a revision number and the follower need to update to the latest version of world-view as soon as it is made available by a committee?
Because knowledge is too big for one person, so it need a committee to control what information is made relevant to the latest version of world-view.
So, with a committee: a person who subscribed to "religion of science" are fashioned to fit with committee subjective judgement. (
I find the concept to be nonsense. down with the religion of science.
I'm picturing these skinny little dudes with white cloaks, thick rimmed glasses, bald patches and frizzy hair around the sides. They have microchip hard drives and usb ports... every sabbeth they spend the day hooked up to the religious comittee's server... where they recieve any updates to there world view.
Science based religion... Come, worship at the church of Hedron and give all glory to the great and mighty Higgs-Boson. Revel in awe and wonder at the word and let E=MC2 be the whole of the law...
As for scientology... It is a fake religion that tells people they are "special" because they have alien souls living inside them and this is why they suffer from depression etc. It is a bunch of sci-fi crap that people are foolish enough to believe. The rich seem highly susceptible to this drivel because they are rich and therefore already "special". It just makes them more "special".
Science will never be like that.
There is one thing science does not deal with.
Science does not deal with imaginary things conjured up by the human imagination. It might study the process by which such fictional things are developed, but is not concerned with unreal objects.
For this reason, science does not deal with religion and deities. Science does not worry about ethics, since these are imaginary conjurings. Science may look at altruism as a mental process, or even the evolution of altruism, but not the twists and turns that altruism takes.
Ethics and ethical codes are conjured up by the human imagination. That does not make them unimportant, and we should take them seriously, but it puts that topic in a realm other than science.
This is why I love science.
Rather than compare it to religion, you could compare it to faith. For some of us, it is an insurmountable desire. We follow science, seek science, and hold science close to our heart. We actually come to love science. To be comforted by it.
The eye of science is unblinking and all walls fall before it. For me, God is nothing in the face of science. He is reduced to data. Science is that powerful. It's almost intoxicating. Am I sounding weird yet?
To Flick.
That was possibly a bit over the top. Since science is a process used by humans, it is subject to human imperfections, which will reduce its effectiveness. But it is certainly a major step forward compared to religion.
i'm not pretending i'm a scientist... But i'm convinced many scientists have used science to try to find out if some of the imaginary things they imagine are true or not.
I would have thought science is the study of everything.
Yes flick, very weird! science is faith... whatever next?
Science is not faith, and science does not study everything.
Science studies that which is real. It does not study that which is unreal.
I never said science is faith... that was flick wasn't it?
How does science know if something is real or not unless it is studied?
Like God... are you saying science has never been used to study God?
No, science is not used to study God. God is something that cannot be seen, touched, or measured in any way. Personally, I think that is because God is a fantasy. He/she/it does not exist. I cannot say that for sure, and there is always a faint possibility that some such beast might be real. But science cannot study that faint possibility since there is nothing empirical to test.
No, I was saying that a love of science is comparable in the human emotional state to a love of faith. Questioning scientific methodology stings me on a personal level as much as I imagine it would sting someone to question their faith.
Faith and science are NOT the same, that is why I love science.
Scientology would by definition literally be the study of scient. "Ology" is Greek for "Study of", I don't know what the fudge "scient" is supposed to fudging be.
I think "scient" stands for "money".
In that case, the form of government in America would be Scientocracy. The rule of money.I think "scient" stands for "money".
Scientologists are xenophobic, secretive, wealthy, greedy, aggressive, will wage war on anyone that stands in their way no matter what the politics are, will readily fabricate lies, and routinely use celebrity "politicians" as their representatives to fool the population into thinking they are benign and only have the best intentions towards us.In that case, the form of government in America would be Scientocracy. The rule of money.I think "scient" stands for "money".
What does this sound like?
hahaa
I beleive scient means knowing
QFY
Very good. That is exactly what it means. From the Latin "Scientia" meaning knowledge.
However, let me express my appreciation to the witty people who dreamed up the money meaning. Also very good.
Are we allowed to mix Latin and Greek? And then wouldn't it be Scientiaology?
But since were using Greek and Latin we have a choice of two different grammatical structures, the word could also be Ologyscientia.
Of course. This is English; we can mix morphemes from hundreds of languages.
I repeat my aprecietion to those wits... Haaahaaaaa!
Now let me display my penuria scientia... isn't latin a greek language?... don't answer that! latin is roman, greek is greek. english is all of the above and more, thanks wiki.
I couldn't find ology in the greek derivatives, but I did find 'log' meaning word, speech, thought. My theory is now that 'log' is the root of ology, so scientology means recording, speaking or thinking about what you know.
scient (knowing) O-log-y (word, speech, thought) is to record, speak or think of knowledge.
so scient -o-log-y... could mean 'words of wisdom'?
Redemtion song anybody? "won't you help to sing, another scientology, cause all I ever had... scientology'... jah, rasta fari.
I went too far didn't I?
Science is already a world view. One shared by all the posters on this forum. Like all world views it has its blind spots and foibles. It behoves us to be aware of these.
Here's a little test : how many of you would, on at least on first glance, agree with these statements: "Science has disproved the existence of ghosts". "There is no such thing as a Sea Serpent ."
Not many would agree with that as an absolute definite.
I disagree with both.
I also disagree with both... There are sea snakes right? I seen them on t.v. as for ghosts, i'm not surewhat tests have been done but I doubt they have been prooved to be unreal.
It seems your world view might be based on what you think science proves rather than what it actually proves?
Scientology certainly counts as a religion with all the trappings (doctrines, churches, etc), no more or less than the Abrahamic religions other than perhaps size of the followership.
--
Could there be a science based religion? Yes, but only using the broadest definition of religion which includes various atheistic world philosophies. For me, it's far easier to consider those philosophies which reject some "god" as something else altogether. We might not worship at a atom smasher, or at some huge mirror observatory, but science would be a heck of a lot more attractive to folks, and honestly more pervasive and fun, if it deliberately celebrated and embraced some of the advertising "tools" used by faiths. And combined with humanism, it's probably the most powerful means to advance human ethics, that man has yet come up with.
I don't think science is or should be considered a religion, but i'd have to look up the definition. Anyway...
How do you think scient might advance ethics? we pretty much have an advanced knowledge of Ethics, the problem is people do they'r own thing according to thier own desires.
I can't see how science has improved ethics in people. I definitely can see how religion and spiritual philosophy makes people think and act in a way which is kinder and nicer to others. You're saying science could be called religion... maybe it's religion which could be called a science? (that should cause a stir).
Outline your science based religion for us lynx... what's the concept?
I'll illustrate by example. I was raised, like most traditional religious people, to be heavily bigoted against gay people--I heard things against them during sermons, read them in the "good" book, and by extension of that religious-based intolerance into a range of bigoted beliefs: It's a short trip from a sermon that god is against gays and in fact were deliberately killed for their sins, to fabricating all sorts of myths about them. You've heard them all before. : Gay parents will turn their adopted kids gay! Gays go through relationships like lumberjacks change their socks! Gays are full of diseases! Gays are really straight people who choose to be gay (in rebellion against god!) Evolution could never produce a gay! Marriage is exclusively religious. etc.How do you think scient might advance ethics?
So how does science advance ethics? By applying the scientific method towards confirm or deny those beliefs which can be tested to learn about gays. What does it find? Such as: there's little to no evidence of a destroyed city of gay people; adopted kids by gay parents don't turn gay; gay couples when given the opportunity actually stay together as long or longer than straight couples; the most common experience for gays is they realize they are just attracted to the same sex, just like straight people grow up attracted to the opposite sex--conscious choice seldom happens; there are several mechanisms by which evolution could account for gays, marriage in niether colonional nor modern America has ever derived its authority from any church etc.
Science is responsible for completely changing my ethical views towards gay people, how I think about them, how I treat them, and what rights I think they should have. There are many other subjects where science, and it's methods have played a key role to inform and shape ethical issues.
==
While, as I said, I would hesitate to called science a religion because it's a heavily loaded word, I do think scientist should do far more to advance their own methods and discoveries, not shy away when it applies to how we live, and embrace some of the communication means that make faith so attractive to people. Are a half dozen journal articles enough to convince people about the realities of gays for example? Or is hearing the intolerant anti-gay sermons a few times per year more effective? For most people it's the sermon. Imagine if science-minded people gathered a few time a month with friends, other likely minded people from their communities to hear the latest science research and some themes were recurring? Or every solstice they climbed a mountain to an observatory or walked to a planetarium to celebrate Hubble, his life, his discoveries and the latest research about dark matter and energy! Science should take a long look at embracing the effective techniques of religion to communicate its themes.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 14th, 2012 at 03:37 PM.
I'm a sap. So sue me.
Just a hint here. When searching for a word derivation on google, preface the key word with "etymology". Etymology is the study of word derivations, and there is an on line etymology dictionary. A real treasure of word origins within.
Try googling "etymology ology" and see what happens.
Online Etymology Dictionary: -ology
and
Online Etymology Dictionary: Scientology
Oddly, this misses out the bit about them being crazy and deluded...
Hmm... Mixing morphemes between different languages still seems a little dirty to me. Properly then shouldn't the word be "gnosisology"?
I don't think the people at the top of the Scientology organization are crazy or deluded. They know it's all bull, and their raking in the cash.
Isn't that what makes it fun? And does that mean we shouldn't use the Middle English plural marker (s) with non-English roots? And what about reanalysis of morphemes to produce things like -copter? That must eeevil!
You might like this, though: Ideas Illustrated » Blog Archive » Visualizing English Word Origins
Well... Just because it's dirty it doesn't mean I don't like it. English is the bastard child of at least half the global village, and my native language. And definitely we should stick to one specific plural marker regardless of the lingual roots. Really though, in the future there should be a global language that conforms to a symmetry group.
I think Scientology has to count as a valid religion. If you want to be in denial about the finality of death and you can find a system to do it, and you gain followers then that counts as a religion. It also brainwashes its 'children' and it is after their money.
If aliens ever discover Earth, I think they would ridicule poly and mono theism. I think they would ask 'What about us?'. Then we could reply 'Well there is Scientology!'
Scientology lacks respect because wars have not yet been fought on its behalf. Are its beliefs stranger than those found in mainstream religion? Consider the early cultic Christians and how weird their beliefs must have appeared. The mother of their founder had been impregnated by a ghost or spirit. He became famous by fooling the public with simple conjuring tricks and claiming to be the son of god. He rose from the dead and physically ascended into heaven. No wonder they were persecuted.
Only time has granted them respectability.
The only problem with Scientology is that it is not impossible enough for a true faith.
I will not be joining its ranks just yet. I will wait for the Reformed Church of Scientology to appear before making a decision.
It is (vaguely) interesting that there have been no schisms yet. There is no Orthodox or Liberal Scientology, no Eastern vs Western split. I guess this is because it is run as a cross between a ruthless business enterprise and a brutal dictatorial state like N. Korea.
Yeah, their leadership is extremely centralised.
And brutal. Don't forget brutal.
That's useful to know skeptic, thanks man.Just a hint here. When searching for a word derivation on google, preface the key word with "etymology". Etymology is the study of word derivations, and there is an on line etymology dictionary. A real treasure of word origins within.
Try googling "etymology ology" and see what happens.
They have that "anything goes" rule. The "fair game" rule as they call it. That is brutal.And brutal. Don't forget brutal.
surely there have been schisms..
from the above linked wiki page-
SquirrelingThe Church of Scientology has argued that unauthorized distribution of information about Scientology practices will endanger mankind. The Religious Technology Center has prosecuted individual breakaway groups that have practiced Scientology outside the official Church without authorization.[citation needed] The act of using Scientology techniques in a form different than originally described by Hubbard is referred to within Scientology as "squirreling", and is said by Scientologists to be "high treason".[19]
"High Treason" - nice friendly language - i guess it really is a religion.
[QUOTE=Harold14370;343884]There is no science based belief system, nor any possibility for a science based belief system in the near or far future.
I agree with this. Science based belief system = oxymoron.
I can however imagine a belief system that respects science appropriately.
Science isn’t something to worship like a God.
Knowledge is a powerful thing and we should give consideration to what directions we want to build our pool of knowledge in. Some truths are very hard to swallow and we should consider is it really necessary to shove them down people’s throats. Some technologies could be considered an abuse of science.
[QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;344502]
Imagine if science-minded people gathered a few time a month with friends, other likely minded people from their communities to hear the latest science research and some themes were recurring? Or every solstice they climbed a mountain to an observatory or walked to a planetarium to celebrate Hubble, his life, his discoveries and the latest research about dark matter and energy! Science should take a long look at embracing the effective techniques of religion to communicate its themes.
These are nice ideas Lynx.
Ceremonies are important. It’s sad to go to a church and see the slaves listening to the same old bible stories and prayers, when there is so much science they don’t know, so much politics and economics we don’t understand, so much Art we don’t appreciate
Sure science can't explain everything but to say that because there's no evidence to disprove 'god's' existence therefore there is the possibility that 'god' exist is ridiculous. That's the same argument the so called paranormal experts use to explain everything. Science, logic and some critical thinking has helped us progress this far!
| « Suicide | Unequal pay - capuchin monkeys » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
